After nearly three years at the center of a legal and political firestorm, Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke faces a crucial decision.

The attorneys representing him on murder charges in the slaying of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald are slated to wrap up their case next week. But before they do, Van Dyke himself must go before Judge Vincent Gaughan and answer the question: Will you take the witness stand?

“It is very hard to win a self-defense case if the defendant does not testify,” defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. said. “If he’s willing to go for a lesser included (charge) like second-degree murder, then maybe they’ve already done enough and you don’t put him on the stand. But if he wants a straight not guilty, he needs to tell his side of the story to the jury.”

Conventional wisdom suggests a defendant should stay away from the stand, preserving his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and eliminating the risk of a tough cross-examination. But Van Dyke’s murder trial has been far from typical.

Van Dyke, 40, faces two counts of first-degree murder, 16 counts of aggravated battery and one count of official misconduct for the October 2014 shooting. Police dashboard camera video released by court order showed Van Dyke opening fire within seconds of exiting his squad car as McDonald, holding a knife, appeared to walk away from police.

As prosecutors have repeatedly played the dashcam video for jurors, Van Dyke’s attorneys have hammered on the idea that only the defendant’s perspective matters in this case. It has become such a common refrain — even a former police firearms instructor made a reference to it — that some legal experts say the officer is almost obligated to take the stand to explain what he saw and how he felt each time he pulled the trigger.

“I find it very difficult to get over that hump without saying, ‘Yes, I’m Jason Van Dyke, those are the things you heard of, that’s what happened … this is why I fired 16 shots,’” said criminal defense attorney David Gaeger. “And explain to (the jury) how all those things that have been brought up by the defense actually affected him.”

But the defense has also presented evidence that could be seen as a substitute for his testimony — in particular, an animated video purporting to show the shooting from Van Dyke’s point of view. And one prosecution witness may have functioned, in essence, as a stand-in for Van Dyke: his partner that night, Joseph Walsh.

Walsh, testifying under immunity from prosecution while facing separate criminal charges in the alleged cover-up of the shooting, told jurors Van Dyke had a “reasonable fear” for his own safety when he shot McDonald. In one of the trial’s most dramatic moments, he stood in front of the jury box and demonstrated an allegedly aggressive move McDonald made moments before the shooting.

That bolstered a key point for the defense — that McDonald posed a genuine threat — and may have made Van Dyke’s testimony unnecessary.

“He’s testifying from a police officer’s perspective to what they were seeing and or feeling at the time,” said criminal defense attorney Barry Spector. “Van Dyke (would) say the same thing.”

Many experts believe the defense strengthened its argument with an animated video it commissioned to show the shooting from Van Dyke’s perspective. Though the computer-generated version does not fully corroborate Walsh’s account — the animated McDonald does not raise his knife to the officers — it does show Van Dyke opening fire when McDonald was 13 feet away with a 3-inch blade in his right hand. It will be up to jurors to decide how seriously to take the animation.

“Showing the jury the shooting from Van Dyke’s perspective was very important,” said veteran defense attorney Terry Ekl. “But I don’t think that (animated) video is going to drive the outcome of this case.”

Calling Van Dyke as a witness is not without risks. If he hits the stand, he would be open to cross-examination — not just about the night he shot McDonald but also potentially his entire employment history, including civilian complaints and civil lawsuits.

Adam believes Van Dyke has an advantage over most murder defendants because, as a police officer, he has spoken in court numerous times and knows what the process entails. He received training on how to be an effective witness and has undergone cross-examinations, albeit never with such high stakes for himself.

“I don’t know why you wouldn’t put him on the stand,” Adam said. “He looks the part. He is the part. You have a professional witness. You need to get up there and sell his story.”

Ekl deposed Van Dyke in 2008 as part of a lawsuit stemming from a police shooting in which Van Dyke played a minor role and said he was not particularly impressed with the officer’s performance.

During the questioning for the civil rights lawsuit, Van Dyke, who was tasked with writing a report from the scene, admitted that he copied the work of other officers on the scene without conducting his own interviews of witnesses. As a result, his official report matched theirs.

The Tribune previously reported that Van Dyke also testified in the deposition that despite listing the officers involved in the shooting as witnesses on his report, he didn't speak to any of them either.

Asked whether he knew if the detectives had interviewed the officers involved in the shooting, Van Dyke replied, "No, no, it's out of my pay grade. I don't question other officers."

The city of Chicago settled the case for $2.2 million in 2016, partly because it did not want Van Dyke — who had already been charged in McDonald’s killing — to be called as a witness.

“I did not believe he was a particularly effective witness when I deposed him based upon his demeanor and content of his answers,” Ekl said.

Still, Ekl believes Van Dyke needs to testify if he wants the jury to acquit him.

“It’s extremely hard to win a self-defense case without putting the defendant on the stand,” he said. “I think they have to put him up there.”

Defense attorney Darryl Goldberg praised several moves made by the defense team during its case, particularly the expert witnesses who testified that Van Dyke’s actions were in keeping with the rules he was taught at the police academy.

But none of that can replace Van Dyke’s potentially powerful message — and jurors will want to hear it, Goldberg said, even if jurors will be reminded that they cannot infer anything from his silence.

“Jurors might say they won’t hold it against the defendant, but they definitely want to hear the story from him,” Goldberg said. “Jurors want to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth, and in this case you’ve got to give them something they hold up against the video.”

Some defense attorneys hesitate to have defendants testify, largely because most couldn’t survive a prosecution’s grueling questions. Goldberg said he wouldn’t worry about Van Dyke botching that part.

“I wouldn’t be so concerned about the cross(-examination),” Goldberg said. “I think he’s up for the task. I’m sure he has been preparing for from the moment he was arrested.”

Van Dyke told the Tribune in a tightly controlled interview late last month that he is eager to tell his story. In his first media interview just before jury selection began, he denied public perception that he was a racist, trigger-happy officer. Before that night, he had never fired his weapon in more than a decade working nights while patrolling some of the city’s most crime-ravaged neighborhoods, he said.

The veteran patrolman teared up occasionally during the interview and spoke in tones much softer than Walsh, who was unapologetic and, at times, defiant as a trial witness. Van Dyke expressed sadness over McDonald’s death, while insisting he would never shoot unless he had to protect himself or someone else. At every point during the interview, he seemed to fully understand the message he needed to convey.

“It’s been difficult to talk about what happened,” Van Dyke told the Tribune. “There’s also been a lot of false stories out there, a lot of negativity, and it’s up to me to bring out the positives.”

Historically, officers charged in fatal on-duty shootings who testify on their own behalf do well with juries, said Philip Stinson, a Bowling Green State University associate professor who has studied police misconduct cases since 2005. And in a complicated case like the McDonald shooting — in which the teen had a knife but also appeared to be veering away from police officers — jurors will want to hear from Van Dyke, he said.

“The prosecution inevitably puts on witnesses who say they didn’t perceive a threat,” Stinson told the Tribune. “But we see time and time again juries will disregard that testimony. They are very reluctant to second-guess the split-decision — a life-or-death decision — of a police officer in a potentially violent street encounter.”

Juries, however, don’t always believe the officer’s account. Last month, a Texas jury convicted a white police officer who testified in his own defense in the shooting of a black teen.

The officer, Roy Oliver, said he was defending his partner when he opened fire into a car of teens when the driver pulled away from a house party in the Dallas suburb of Balch Springs

A front-seat passenger, Jordan Edwards, 15, who was a freshman honor roll student, was struck and died instantly. Oliver was sentenced to 15 years in prison for murder.

Ultimately, it is always up to the defendant to decide whether to testify. An attorney cannot make that choice or override the defendant’s decision.

“You might suggest that it would help or you might suggest that it could hurt,” Spector said. “But I’ve had clients where I’ve hoped they didn’t testify and they wanted to testify. I thought I was going to have to grab their legs as they were walking to the witness table to tackle them. But I couldn’t stop them.”

Surrogate witnesses like Walsh can be effective, Ekl said, but ultimately Van Dyke will need to speak for himself. He’s the only one who can speak to the explanations his attorney provided in opening statements, including the fear he felt when he pulled the trigger and his belief that McDonald intended to attack him. Even the details of Van Dyke’s routine morning on the day of the shooting — kissing his wife goodbye, taking his daughters to school — would have to come from Van Dyke.

“Other witnesses have helped, but only Van Dyke can talk about his own perspective,” Ekl said. “He’s the only one who can explain what he saw and what he felt at the moment.”